Ok there has been a lot of speculation on the net that the monster in the new JJ Abrams movie is Cthulhu. Personally i don't think we could be lucky enough to get a big budget Cthulhu movie but we can hope.
:cthulhu:

Well, Abrams' folks said at one point that it was an "American monster." I can't think of many American monsters in the popular imagination with the ability to rip off the Statue of Liberty's head.

If it is The Big C, would he leave Red Hook alone?

Clem

Ah, is this the 1/18/08 movie or something? I've only seen the trailer.


I really hope it's not Cthulhu; it looks a bit like a big budget nonsense action disaster movie like The Day After Tomorrow... I think the Great Old One demands more respect than that. :sad:

Sigh. Cthulhu is often alluded to, but rarely well represented.

Ummm, given that the mere sight of Cthulhu is enough to drive most people insane, would putting himon the big screen really be all that good an idea? :wink:

Or is it? Spock?

http://s221.photobucket.com/albums/dd299/serversphere/?action=view&current=monster.flv

I think it is a giant Mr. Krabs. He is angry that so many people are eating Krabby Patties for free. :P

Anyways, someone played with the latest HD trailer for the movie. Definitely has back legs, however my gut tells me it is a sea monster. However when plot rumors were coming out for this movie back in July, people were calling it "the Parasite." Movie was suppose to be an alien monster that invaded New York. Who knows. I'm going to down about 50 motion sickness pills before I see this movie. hah!

Does anyone remember that sort of spoof film set in some American city with a giant pterasaur thing? I think it was meant to be like The BEast from 10billion Gazillion Fathoms and stuff like that, possibly made in the 70s.



Maybe it's a sequel to the American Godzilla??

http://www.cloverfieldnews.com/2007/11/23/tagruato-website-is-getting-a-little-strange/

Seems like one of Cloverfield's viral hellspawn tagruato.jp has been supposedly hacked, well, but that's not the point. But what is important is that if you click on the link, the picture (which was displayed) shows 4 sea creatures. One of which seems like a dumbo octopus of some sort. A deep-sea angler fish, a crab and a jellyfish can also be seen in the picture, along with a massive wave.

On semi-related news, a scan of what seems to be a article from tagruato's product suggests something about a new substance that will theoretically enhance strength,increase soft muscle growth, sharpen eyesight, better digestion and whatnot.

Tagruato.jp seems to be a deep sea mining company, one of the drills (Chuai - Does that mean something?) is the only way that does not have a estimated recoverable resource while all the other ways. Another thing, it's located onh the Mid-Atlantic Ridge..which would be pretty close to New York if you're looking for the closest bit of land.

Invasion of giant dumbo octos?

Does anyone remember that sort of spoof film set in some American city with a giant pterasaur thing? I think it was meant to be like The BEast from 10billion Gazillion Fathoms and stuff like that, possibly made in the 70s.
Hi Graeme,

Do you mean "Q: The Winged Serpent?" (http://www.badmovies.org/movies/q/) MST3K would've had fun with that one. It's not unfunny on its own merits, but could still use a little help.

Cheers,
Clem

I think it could be that. Thanks Clem. I never saw it, but I always wanted to seeing as it's got a big nasty beastie in it.

I doubt this really belongs in the Cthulhu section, since JJ Abrams himself said it's not Cthulhu.

Hi Graeme,

Do you mean "Q: The Winged Serpent?" (http://www.badmovies.org/movies/q/) MST3K would've had fun with that one. It's not unfunny on its own merits, but could still use a little help.

Cheers,
Clem

I LOVE that movie. I'm a big fan of Larry Cohen's writing, and that one was hilarious. A small-time hood (Michael Moriarty) stumbles upon Quetzalcoatl's egg and then watches as it hatches (in the tower of the Chrysler Building), and starts leading other gangsters he owes money to up there to let the monster finish them off (which is exactly what I would do with a God-spawned monster, should I owe the Mafia money. Always pays to be practical). Great B-movie. Plus, David Carradine's in it. How can anybody not go rent this?

I doubt this really belongs in the Cthulhu section, since JJ Abrams himself said it's not Cthulhu.

All giant critters attacking cities rightfully belong here in the Cthulhu forum. There's no other section of this site where they would belong.

Well, here's a distillation of what I've been seeing on various "Cloverfield" discussion pages, including reports from people who claim to have seen preview screenings. POSSIBLE SPOILER ALERT! (Select following text to make it visible.). The monster is roughly Godzilla-sized, and first appears in the mid-Atlantic, where it destroys a deep-sea drilling platform. It has six or more limbs and a "whale-like" head. It's underbelly is covered with large parasitic arthropods, which drop off once the host moves onto the island of Manhattan. While the host monster smashes the city, the arthropods reproduce by injecting wee arthropods into human hosts.

Sounds like a pretty good monster to me, in part because it sounds a bit like the creature in Mike Mignola's "Hellboy: The Conqueror Worm" comics. If the monster's initial appearance is as described, it certainly nods to The Big C, and could be considered Lovecraftian in much the same way that "Alien" was Lovecraftian.

I wasn't crazy about "Blair Witch Project," mostly because the actors were quite limited, but I did appreciate its story structure and economy of style. I hope "Cloverfield" lives up to its potential, and doesn't become a case-study of how a viral marketing campaign can surpass in achievement what it tries to sell.

Clem

Well, we will know in a week or so! Loved the Q movie, truly spectacular in it's fascinating deviation from any sort of attempt at scriptwriting or special effects. Almost a super8 film.

I used to own "Q," back when I had a sizable collection of VHS tapes in Widescreen format. The film does have certain qualities, but I'm not gonna replace it with a DVD. Carradine and Moriarty were good, and Quetzalcoatl was a decent piece of stop-motion work. Speaking of which...

...rumors of the "Cloverfield" monster's morphology notwithstanding, the fact that Phil Tippett's studio worked on the FX augurs well. Tippett made his name doing stop-motion work for the original "Star Wars" trilogy (AT-ATs, Tauntaun, holographic board game, etc) and the first two "Robocop" films, then transitioned to digital animation during "Jurassic Park" His studio's work on "Starship Troopers" was superb.

Clem

I have a bad feeling about this movie, but that just might be due to the recent disappointments with other films I was psyched about that let me down.

If you watch the trailer close enough there is a scene where you can see odd silhouettes inside a tent(?) attacking people. Look kinda like turtles standing upright on their hind legs.

Perhaps they are deep ones wearing protective land gear?

See what I'm worried about is the way it's filmed- like it has really happened. You'd think we'd all have noticed a giant monster attacking NY, no? Blair Witch got away with it because it was on a significantly smaller scale; in the middle of a wood, with about 4 people. I reckon this is too big a deal for the technique.

What I mean is I can't help but feel they should have filmed it as a normal movie. I have a bad feeling that this is going to be a heavy-handed attempt at producting something "Lovecraftian", missing hte point entirely (what marks HPL as successful stories is not giant monsters with unpronouncable names, though they feature, it's the atmosphere and suspense- the gritty realism. Charlse Dexter Ward had barely any monsters, and yet it succeeded- Although they feature prominently, he certainly didn't need them to make a cracking story!).

Hi Graeme,

You make a good point about verité techniques and their applicability to genre pics and epic themes. One example of the successful merging of gritty realism w/ sci-fi and horror is "Alien." Scott intentionally went for a documentary feel (influenced heavily by "Texas Chainsaw Massacre) for that picture, from handheld camera-work to casual, naturalistic dialogue to the real functionality of the props and sets. Of course, that was "Alien" and Scott is a legend, but I do think he proved that an immersive, logical and believable movie can be made about utterly fantastic events. Perhaps it's because I'm an actor myself, but my chief concern about "Cloverfield" is the quality of the performances. "Blair Witch" was, to my mind, hamstrung by bad acting, and let's face it, we've been conditioned by too many bad films to associate twenty-something characters with bland monster bait. It takes a talented actor to register stark terror at a cardboard cutout in front of a green screen.

As Greg said, I guess we'll find out next week.

Clem

LOL...the best part of the Blair Witch Project was the sci-fi presentation on "the making of..." it was much more believable than the film. I like to cuss with the best of them (just ask Orser), but quickly grew tired of the teen-angst "f" word use. Hopefully, Cloverfield will avoid that bit of BritneySpearism.

Clem, if they make a movie about Cthulhu without you in it (Lestrange?), I will really raise a stink.

I'm curious whether we'll get it here in the NL, or it'll be straight to DVD... The Rotterdam Film festival is on end of Jan; SO looking forward :smile:

Did anyone read Sergio Argones' parody comic book of Blair Witch? It's pretty funny; I'll have to dig it up when I get back in town... He uses the "punctuation marks for swear words" comic book aspect to a marvelous parody effect...

Hi Graeme,

You make a good point about verité techniques and their applicability to genre pics and epic themes. One example of the successful merging of gritty realism w/ sci-fi and horror is "Alien." Scott intentionally went for a documentary feel (influenced heavily by "Texas Chainsaw Massacre) for that picture, from handheld camera-work to casual, naturalistic dialogue to the real functionality of the props and sets. Of course, that was "Alien" and Scott is a legend, but I do think he proved that an immersive, logical and believable movie can be made about utterly fantastic events. Perhaps it's because I'm an actor myself, but my chief concern about "Cloverfield" is the quality of the performances. "Blair Witch" was, to my mind, hamstrung by bad acting, and let's face it, we've been conditioned by too many bad films to associate twenty-something characters with bland monster bait. It takes a talented actor to register stark terror at a cardboard cutout in front of a green screen.

As Greg said, I guess we'll find out next week.

Clem

You use one of my all-time favourite films as a good example there:grin: To my mind, another film that puts good use to camera film techniques is Dog Soldiers, which uses handheld digital cameras at the start, making it look very much like our British Territoral Army TV adverts, but then I've always rated Neil Marshal highly. I actually thought Blair Witch was an alright film; but what I'm trying to get across is that Blair Witch benefited from the handheld camera treatment because it was set in the back of beyond, and could really have been footage shot by amatuer "ghosthunters". Cloverfield is taking a monster movie (essentially what looks like a Westernised Kaiju movie...) and applying this same technique. I don't understand how that will work, given that New York is a pretty well-known place, and a big monster rising out of the depths would, I'm sure, feature at least a small column in a paper. It's like Abrams is trying to say "hey, this monster movie could be real!" as it's shot on a single handheld... I think it's going to completely miss the mark, because people will know that it's just a movie. It's kind of hard to explain what I'm trying to get across here. Alien, and it's inspiration TCM, although still cinematic, have a very realistic and gritty look.

well, that is a distinct possibility. Mind you, the premise is that the film is being shot by a group of people having a big party, hence the camera, and the terror that rises comes so quickly that most officials are caught off guard. It could either be handled well, or it could be a complete disaster. I just hope it isn't too jumbly, that makes me sick to my stomach.

Did anyone see the latest "Dawn of the Dead" ? It had a spectacular ending done in the "hand filmed" style. Quite gripping for a cheesy ripoff.

Graeme, I think understand where you're coming from. If we accept the premise, that sometime in the near future a titanic creature will arrive in and wreck New York, it's reasonable to assume that it will be a rather big deal, reported in exhaustive fashion by our august and unimpeachably reliable (snicker) journalistic institutions. Why, then, go to a home video shot by a twenty-something partygoer as the primary source for an epochal event? It's a good question, and I think I have a good answer for it. It'll be hard for U.S. audiences not to see "Cloverfield" as a 9/11 metaphor, and I suspect that the choice to focus on the "little" people's experience was informed by the nature of the information stream manifest in the days immediately after 9/11. Some of the most remarkable and informative narrative images were recorded not by journalists but by tourists, residents and amateur photgraphers/filmmakers. For example, the only video of the first plane to hit WTC Tower 1 was accidentally recorded by someone shooting an indpendent film. All he had to do was pan up when he heard the jet's engines. Amateur videographers have been a true game-changer in the news biz, and the advent of YouTube and other online video hosting services means that they'll be game-changers in the entertainment film biz as well.

Having said all that, it's possible that "Cloverfield's" common man "journalism" will leave people wishing they were watching Christianne Amanpour and the CNN team, or wishing for the more plainly artificial conventions of formal sci-fi. "Dog Soldiers" was great fun, by the way, though I hear the American version wasn't as good as the UK cut. Still need to see "The Descent." How's that one? Marshall's a real talent.

Greg, if the reports from "Cloverfield's" preview screenings are accurate, some people are going to experience serious vertigo and nausea. As far as my acting career goes, I'd be happy to play a penguin in "Mountains of Madness."

About those "Cloverfield" previews: I'm happy to report that people are having a really hard time describing the monster, despite being given good looks at it.

Clem

Still need to see "The Descent." How's that one? Marshall's a real talent.


I loved The Descent. Very creepy. As far as new horror movies go, it's at the top of my list. Not campy at all.

As far as my acting career goes, I'd be happy to play a penguin in "Mountains of Madness."


Given the recent spate of penguin films, that'll probably come back to haunt you..... What do i smell? Is that photoshop starting? :twisted:

Graeme, I think understand where you're coming from. If we accept the premise, that sometime in the near future a titanic creature will arrive in and wreck New York, it's reasonable to assume that it will be a rather big deal, reported in exhaustive fashion by our august and unimpeachably reliable (snicker) journalistic institutions. Why, then, go to a home video shot by a twenty-something partygoer as the primary source for an epochal event? It's a good question, and I think I have a good answer for it. It'll be hard for U.S. audiences not to see "Cloverfield" as a 9/11 metaphor, and I suspect that the choice to focus on the "little" people's experience was informed by the nature of the information stream manifest in the days immediately after 9/11. Some of the most remarkable and informative narrative images were recorded not by journalists but by tourists, residents and amateur photgraphers/filmmakers. For example, the only video of the first plane to hit WTC Tower 1 was accidentally recorded by someone shooting an indpendent film. All he had to do was pan up when he heard the jet's engines. Amateur videographers have been a true game-changer in the news biz, and the advent of YouTube and other online video hosting services means that they'll be game-changers in the entertainment film biz as well.

That is a good point. I'm just a bit finiky about such things, like my worry that they're trying to make it "real", when maybe it's all meant to be plain artistic. The allusions to 9/11 are not lost on me, and I guess that it might be an interesting, though poignant, prospect to bear in mind during the film. As long as it doesn't become a "Gojira-ism" (you know, instead of it being a Tsunami, the Japanese can say "oh, you know it was a giant dragon that did this!"). Who knows.



"Dog Soldiers" was great fun, by the way, though I hear the American version wasn't as good as the UK cut. Still need to see "The Descent." How's that one? Marshall's a real talent.

The Descent is truly a disturbing film! Amazing. One of the few horrors to actually make me feel uncomfortable (probabl due to my slight discomfort to the prospect of being buried alive). The cave systems really are claustrophobic, and not for someone with genuine phobias (D20 SAN roll at least! :lol:). Great film, although in my opinion nowhere near Dog Soldiers, but then werewolves win over troglodites any day!:twisted: Well worth a watch, but get the British cut if you can- much better, and shocking, ending!

At last, a "Cloverfield" update that explicitly involves squid.

Seems that there's a manga tie-in to the movie (http://www.kadokawa.co.jp/tachiyomi/comic/cloverfield/_SWF_Window.html), a short Japanese comic that gives a bit of backstory that won't be in the film. It's all in Japanese, crosscutting between some apprehensive young folks in Japan and a flotilla of ships at sea, which are hauling in...something. You can view the whole thing online. Just remember that manga read back to front.

Attached is the first page of the manga. The squid doesn't like what's coming up. The last page is weirdly creepy.

Clem

ps: Remember how the "Animatrix" anime tie-in to the second and third "Matrix" films was far better than either of those films? I hope this manga doesn't present us with a similar scenario.

Judging by the pores, a giant Tremoctopus :wink:

Hmmm... I'm starting to get excited now. Decided I'm going to see it.. don't post stuff that gives me high expectations!

Um guys, ...?

I hate to tell you this, but it's Godzilla. Seriously. They have already said that he's "fifty stories high". It practically from the cartoon song in the eighties.

I bet you that come Friday, they are going to replace the posters with a Godzilla poster. It's actually a novel approach. Instead of getting a bunch of anti-hype, they change the name and release the real name day of.

Watch and see...

Donnerboy, I've read a few legit reviews of "Cloverfield" and while the reviewers all have difficulty describing exactly what the monster looks like, the commonalities in the descriptions are at odds with the Big G. In fact, and in accordance with hints dropped early on in the "Cloverfield" viral marketing, the creature design suggests a gigantic mash-up of dumbo octopus, angler fish and deep-sea crab. Bizarre stuff.

Clem

ps: Here's a legit review (http://www.bigpicturebigsound.com/Cloverfield-1371.shtml) by my friend Joe, posted this morning. No spoilers.

"A monster in midtown? Ok, I'll buy it. But walk underground from Spring St to 59th? That's just silly." :grin:

Yeah, that's a good line. I'm in agreement with Joe's film reviews roughly 75% of the time, and we've complained about the scarcity of decent monster movies in recent years.

I may try to see "Cloverfield" tomorrow, in which case I'll post some sort of review.

Clem

I have to say that the latest trailer shows what Clem thinks are parasites falling haphazardly off the monster attacking some scream queen in a backlit tent, that bring bad sketches of chupacabra's to mind. Go see the movie, Adam Clem Kenobi, you're our only hope :smile:

Um guys, ...?

I hate to tell you this, but it's Godzilla. Seriously. They have already said that he's "fifty stories high". It practically from the cartoon song in the eighties.

I bet you that come Friday, they are going to replace the posters with a Godzilla poster. It's actually a novel approach. Instead of getting a bunch of anti-hype, they change the name and release the real name day of.

Watch and see...

OK,

I am completely wrong. Friends went to see it and supposedly it is right up our alley. No more of a spoiler than that. Although they said several people bordered on getting nauseous. Not from gore, but from the entirety of the movie shot like it's a kid running with a beta-cam.

Apparently, it's a Godzilla styled movie, but with all of the footage from the little guys about to get stepped point-of-view.

It's basically a Western Kaiju flick shot in first-person perspective then?



That makes it sound really bad :lol: Western and Kaiju are two words that should never go together :lol:

Scroll down a bit to see "the monster" (http://planetapex.blogspot.com/), or, apparently so :wink:

Scroll down a bit to see "the monster" (http://planetapex.blogspot.com/), or, apparently so :wink:

Bah... don't guess I'll waste my money.

We'll wait for Clem to confirm :grin:

Haven't seen the movie yet, other priorities at the moment, but I am 99% certain that it doesn't look like that. That looks like speculative fan art to me.

OK, along the lines of:

Exactly. We should never have been fooled by that one, I mean, who designs a scary monster patterned after a baleen whale? What's it going to do, strain me to death?

Explode? :wink:

Scroll down a bit to see "the monster" (http://planetapex.blogspot.com/), or, apparently so :wink:

Ok i don't know too much about Cthulu, but i went to see "Cloverfield" today and the monster definitely does not look like the one in the link. I wont give away what happens in the movie but i will describe the monster for you. So if you dont wish to find out, skip the description.


It is hard to describe since you never get too see it very carefully, but basically it has long tail, black narrow eyes on the front of its face. A mouth that seems small in respect to its face, with two big sharp teeth coming out of it. It has a sea monster type look and is pretty big. I wouldn't say as big as a sky scraper but about 20 maybe 30 stories high. It has legs that are pointy at the tips, and have a sort of "spidery" look to them. Also it drops off parasites that look like a mix between a spider and a crab. I would say these are about 4 feet long, and very aggressive. Thats all i can recall for now. hope it helps. Oh i forgot to mention, on the sides of its head there is a big red bulge that pulsates. My guess is that it is some sort of heart or maybe a brain.

So...... do you recommend it?

definitely. The way it was filmed gets a little annoying and it does make you slightly dizzy but nothing extreme. In my opinion it was a really good movie, and it has a great end, that leaves you asking a lot of unanswered questions, so hopefully there is a sequel, but i think if there were one it might take away from the first. Overall it's interesting and it is not your usual big screen movie. I really recommend it.

Hmmm... that's the second time I've heard the end leaves you guessing. I think I'm gonna have to wait for it to be available on Netflix. I hate paying $8 for disappointment. (only gambling I do is buying octos)

Maybe the "parasites" are giant cirolanid isopods. That would be scary. I think a good picture of the actual monster would help me determine whether or not I'm interested. Friggin teasers.

i found this http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2008/01/17/images/cloverfieldsmallslowhu0.gif which sort of shows the monster, you can see the red "thing" pulsating on its head.

Okay, just got back from the theater.

"Cloverfield" is really good.

Let me get the heavy stuff out of the way first. Yes, "Cloverfield" is, among other things, a monstrous allegory for the 9/11 attack on New York. If you look at the movie's poster with an eye for New York's geography, you notice that the monster literally makes landfall a scant few blocks from the World Trade Center site. Certain images of destruction in the film are derived from ones in our collective memory: skyscrapers collapse, clouds of pulverized debris race down the streets, people flee across the Brooklyn Bridge. Even the final moments of a couple at the film's end seem touched by the day (they die holding hands, as some pairs were seen to do before they fell from the WTC towers).

Some critics have reacted badly to all this, and I can't say they're wrong. Some people are still too raw from 9/11 and can do without the flashbacks. On the other hand, 1954's "Gojira" was also critized in Japan by those who felt the movie's images of Tokyo's fiery destruction cut too close to the bone. As much as "Gojira" was a conscious invocation of atomic bombings (and the poisoning by H-bomb fallout of Japanese fishermen), it was more broadly about the generalized destruction of war. B-29s incinerated 18 square miles of Tokyo on March 10, 1945, and "Gojira" came back to burn the rest just nine years later. And yet, "Gojira" did a huge business in Japan and was nominated for the Best Picture award in Japan's version of the Oscars. It lost to a little film named "The Seven Samurai."

All this begs a question, actually, two questions. Is America ready for an entertaining, cathartic and frequently terrifying allegory for 9/11? Is the City of New York ready for it? I think the answer to the first question is yes. We've had a number of historical dramas about the day, heroic narratives of bravery and sacrifice. What we haven't had is a film about the existential dread pervading a city under attack. We need one, I think. As for New York's readiness, it's hard for me to judge. Outwardly, the City is as fast, tough and beautiful as ever. The attacks are rarely discussed among friends, and when they are they're spoken of in hushed, discreet tones, but when a truck backfires in the middle of a busy street, people duck for cover. "Cloverfield" might be a bit much for some.

Okay, enough with the cathartic-experience-of-apocalypse-by-proxy talk. Let's get down to the fun, geeky stuff, because "Cloverfield's" metaphorical freight runs on a track paralell to a very fast, tight and occasionally brilliant popcorn flick. In the first twenty minutes, we meet the six main characters, all young, career-oriented hipster doofuses leading unremarkable lives. They've known each other for years. Rob and Beth were friends, but then they slept together and now things are awkward; Jason, Rob's brother, and his girlfriend Lily; Malena, who's on the outer periphery of the clique; and Hud, Rob's best friend and the story's chief videographer.

Melodramas unfold at a going-away party for Rob, faithfully documented by Hud. Then there's a massive impact, the lights go out and people start screaming. On the televison, a reporter announces that a supertanker has capsized in New York Harbor. The partiers head to the roof for a better view. Another impact, a massive fireball rips through the southern tip of Manhattan and meteors of burning debris rain down. The Statue of Liberty's head bounces down the street, with ominous punctures in it's face. (In a nice, honest moment, gawkers take pictures of the head with their cell phones.) A monster steps across the street.

All hell breaks loose, and stays loose for the next hour. Unable to flee to Brooklyn and separated from Beth, the survivors head uptown to rescue her, walking along the empty tracks of the No. 6 subway train. They're not alone. The behemoth inspires terror and awe, but the smaller creatures in its train are intimately scaled and their attacks feel more personal. The survivors make it out of the tunnel, but one of them has suffered a vicious bite. After stumbling into an emergency triage unit set up in a department store, the bite's effects quickly manifest, and amid panicking soldiers and patients, the victim is hustled into an isolation tent by doctors in bio-hazard suits. What happens next is all the more appalling for being (mostly) unseen. Reduced to three in number, the survivors learn that Manhattan has been handed a death sentence. If they can rescue Beth from a listing skyscraper and reach helicopters evacuating the few remaining ground troops, they might just survive.

The record of the events that's contained in Rob's camcorder survives as a memory card recovered later from, in the words of the Department of Defense, "the area formerly known as Central Park."

"Cloverfield's" technique is formidable. Director Matt Reeves came up in American episodic television directing nothing scarier than "Felicity," but he orchestrates the mayhem beautifully and cleverly exploits the potential of the camcorder gimmick. He's a rather gifted imagemaker, too, tossing off quick poetic shots of a horse, still yoked to a hansom cab, wandering through a deserted Columbus Circle, and a B-2 bomber drifting above a string of birds fleeing Central Park. The sound design is fantastic, too. When the behemoth walks, you feel it.

The film is sufficiently good for me to be genuinely annoyed by its shortcomings. Excepting the one who get's bitten, the leads aren't very good. If you want to pour your limited budget into effects work and location shoots, thus leaving you with no money for name-brand actors, fine. If you cast unknowns for narrative reasons, i.e. because stars like to survive in the end, that's fine too, but there's really no excuse for casting mediocre unknowns when there are, quite literally, thousands of talented unknown actors in the United States, and a fair portion of them live in New York. (Full disclosure: I'm a talented unknown actor, but too old to play any of the callow yuppies in "Cloverfield's" leading roles. I'm not bitter about my station, but there's just no excuse for racing ponies when thoroughbreds are available for the same price.) The dialogue isn't inspired or even naturalistic, but the main characters are so resolutely average that it doesn't matter. Arguably the film's best line is spoken by a harried soldier, asked what the beast is, who says simply, "Whatever it is, it's winning."

Is the monster scary? Yes. Simple's prior description of it is accurate, an amalgam of hominid, arthropod and reptile morphology that moves as a biped or a quadruped, depending on its fancy. It has joints in odd places, paired secondary limbs down its middle and a bridge-killing tail. What unifies the elements (and disturbed me) is the way it moves, which is hard to describe but not unlike the awkward crawl of a grounded bat. The sound design for its voice alternates Gojira bellows with a high, almost echolocatory cry. Until the film's climax, we get a better sense for the behemoth's shape from glimpses of newscasts than by master shots with the camcorder, a smart move. (The integration of CGI creature effects with the digital camcorder medium and TV news cameras is almost seamless, it should be noted, with momentary exceptions, mostly involving the smaller buggers.)

The precise nature of the smaller buggers symbiosis with the behemoth is never explained. Hardly anything is explained, which I prefer in monster movies unless the creature's morphology and lifecycle are thought out logically and make sense. Lacking any pretense of scientific plausibility, "Cloverfield's" bestiary is simply scary. There is a strong family resemblance between the behemoth and the creatures that drop off its flanks, and until I'm corrupted by "official" backstory, I'll enjoy my sexual dimorphism theory: the big one's female and the small ones males, hundreds of mates parasitically bound to the female until she dislodges them by rubbing against buildings, and the human effects of the small ones' bites an extreme anaphylactic reaction.

"Cloverfield" is the best attempt yet at an American translation of Honda's 1954 "Gojira," and fans of that one will detect numerous homages. "Cloverfield" is not an American kaiju flick, but it was made by people who love the genre and were bold enough to shed many of its formal conventions. It actually made me cringe back in my seat at times, and I'm a jaded, cynical moviegoer inclined to look at a 250-foot tall movie monster and think, "No way is that biomechanically sound." It still got to me, though, and some of the scariest images are hard to shake. Horror films are exercises in the manipulation of primal fears. Manipulating them successfully isn't easy. Manipulating them successfully in cynics who are aware they're being maipulated but still want to hide is hard.

Well done.

Clem

I'd have to say that from now on, almost every single monster flick/action flick with explosions happening in NYC is going to be said to have a tie-in with 9/11.

Seriously, it's a movie. Tie ins or not, a monster smashing up the city is still pretty neat.

I saw the movie on the 17th (Yes, Hong Kong released the movie on the 17th, with our GMT+8 time, which means that we got to see if half a day earlier than the rest of the world.) and I also was a follower of the viral marketing campaign and I must say that it actually made the movie "that much more" interesting if you know where to look.

Spoilers below, stop if you don't want to read:
You've been warned once
.
.
.
You've been warned twice
.
.
.
Too late now, it starts below (going from the start of the movie to the end)
Rob's party:
Rob's going to Japan to work for a company call Tagurato.
Somebody is spotted in Rob's party sporting a Slusho T-shirt.

The tanker:
The tanker that capsized belongs to Tagurato (you can actually see the Logo on the boat as the boat is listing towards the camera)

Tagurato:
Tagurato is a oil drilling company/deep sea exploration company along with several subsidies, such as Slusho.
The company owns a oil-drilling platform, which has recently collapsed (without explosions and with a roar heard in the video) that is near the Mid-Atlantic ridge.
The company is known to be rich enough to have its own security force (private army).

Other subsidiaries:
Slusho (cold slushy drink thing)
Bold Futura (High-tech, secretive about its customers, maybe the military developing branch.)
ParaFUN (Oil/Wax products, seems to be nothing special)
(medical research group specialising in the use of marine biology and science to search for cures?)

Bold Futura:
Recently hurled a satellite into space. Might have fallen back into the Atlantic near Coney Island (Coney Island Scene below)

Chuai Station:
Recently collapsed without so much as a explosion. A found camera phone footage shows armed men within the station and what seems to be guns being fired towards the ocean before the station collapsed. A person "identified" only as the Whistle-blower ha sent a note to the public declaring that there was no oil to be found at the Chuai station and that there is a secret being covered up there. A dark spot (thought to be a oil stain) appears in the footage before the station's collapse.
A roar is heard as the station finally goes down when all of a sudden debris fly out of the water like missiles and hits a lifeboat.

Slusho:
Slusho's active ingredients is DSN (Deep Sea Nectar)
Nobody knows what DSN is other than the fact that it's from the sea.
Slusho is known to have mood lifting and strength enhancing effects for what seems to be all animals.
Fed to: Dogs, fish (yellow-tails) and humans.
It seems that Slusho goes bad when exposed to heat.
Recently approved by the FDA for sale and consumption in America.

The monster:
Nicknamed "Mr Grumpy Pants" by the Internet community, it seems to be of epic proportions. At least the height of the statue of liberty when on all fours, amphibious. Relatively quick/agile. Incredible strength (Statue of Liberty heads are 1)Not aerodynamic and 2)Are not bouncy. It would take a lot for the SoL head to fly, hit a building and then rebound.)
The body seems to be carrying a host of smaller organisms.

What the military used to try take it down:
M1A(?) Abrams tanks, M16s, M270 MRLS (just think rockets, lots of them), AT4 (a rocket designed to punch a hole in light armour), F-16s, a B-2 on a carpet bombing run, F-18s and finally (in the last scene) what seems to be a MOAB or a Fuel Air bomb (perhaps maybe even a tactical nuke)

Is it dead?
No

How am I sure?
After the credits (which did take 5 minutes..maybe more before it ended) you could hear what seems to be a whispered "Help us", but if you play it in reverse, it says "It's still alive."
http://cloverfieldmessage.ytmnd.com/

The smaller wee beasties:
The size of a medium sized dog, quick, agile. Shape similar to the spiders from Starship Troopers. Very much like insects, they fall down from Grumpy Pants, can hang upside from tunnels and such, possess night vision. (You'll know if you've see the movie). Bite releases "something" to make people explode.

About the "We have a bite scene":
No, those are not mutants behind the thing, those are humans in hazmat suits becuase nobody wants the blood of explody people all over your shirt.

The helicopter scene:
After the thing got bombed and much elation that the thing was hit, the thing lunges at the helicopter which is possibly 50-70 stories above the ground. So that thing is pretty tall when standing on two feet/leaping.

Last part of the Coney Island Scene:
If you look at the boat you see in the video and pay attention to it, you can actually see "something" splash into the water. I've personally been unable to see it, but I have people tell me about it. It's something you have to pay attention to.




TBC~ Have to go out and rewatch it

Update: Tagurato's main website is down, possibly due to actions from a enviromental group bent on taking it down called T.I.D.O Wave.

T.I.D.O Wave's website has been locked up by the FBI ~ In-game.

http://www.1-18-08.com/ - Some very interesting pictures, some obviously photoshopped by a not very adept computer user, some rather disturbing. If you open it for 6 minutes, you can hear the monster's roar. Big source of clues for those who are interested.

One of the pictures (the badly photoshopper/night vision one) shows the Navy pounding it with everything along with an A-10 mid right of the photo. A-10s are ground based planes, which means that either 1) The monster is getting close to the coast or 2) We have unskilled photoshoppers.

Request: Can someone add to a estimate of the size of the bite based on the wound on the sperm whales head? Identifying body parts of marine mammals have never been a strong point of mine.

Sounds like a winner to me! Wonder if Blue Oyster Cult will do a song?

More cowbell!

I'd have to say that from now on, almost every single monster flick/action flick with explosions happening in NYC is going to be said to have a tie-in with 9/11.

Seriously, it's a movie. Tie ins or not, a monster smashing up the city is still pretty neat.

Chrono, "or not" is not an option. Here's the director himself, from an interview published yesterday (http://io9.com/346501/io9-talks-to-cloverfield-director-matt-reeves) (1/18/08):

Were you inspired at all by the original 1954 Gojira film?

Yeah, absolutely! That's actually an incredible film, and we've seen the bastardized version here in the United States. Most people are familiar with the film and have seen the Raymond Burr intercut scenes, but that movie is far inferior to the original. It came out the same year as Seven Samurai, and is considered to be a masterpiece in that country. It is a great movie, and it's very haunting.

There's no question that we were aware of the fact that the monster in that film was really a metaphor for the anxiety of that time. That was definitely the idea here that we wanted to create our own national monster the same way Godzilla did to create a monster of our time.

As for the masked message after the credits, people seem to be hearing different things, but I can safely say that "getting" and enjoying the film are, thankfully, not dependent on a burst of static.

Clem

Heard directly, it says "Help us", if play it in reverse, it says "It's still alive."

http://cloverfieldmessage.ytmnd.com/

@Clem:
"or not" as in It's still a good movie regardless of whether or not you could relate to 9/11. It does't have to have a tie-in with 9/11 for it to be a good movie.

It does't have a tie-in with 9/11 for it to be a good movie.
Glad that we're in agreement.:wink:

http://visuallyimplied.com/incoming/1-18-08_11.jpg

It's on the 1-18-08 site. This was what I was referrring to when I was blabbering about whales.

Eek.

On the plus side, that'll makes things easier for Steve and Kat when they necroscopy the whales. Those bites look a bit small for the behemoth we see in the film, though. Perhaps the whales were its baby food.

Some of this backstory material is pretty cool, but I'm skeptical that it all makes up for a coherent whole. That's why I don't like JJ Abrams's television series. After a while, I start to think: "This guy is throwing in everything he can think of to build a mythology that will never, ever make sense." He's like the Stephen King of old, imaginative and a born storyteller but wholly incapable of self-editing or narrative discipline.

I still like my theory about the monster, but the filmmaker's notion that the behemoth is actually a juvenile, lost and scared, is pretty cool too. Presumably, that's why its movements are so gawky and uncoordinated, and at times it seems to be looking for something. Looking for Mom?

"Paging Mrs. Cloverfield, Mrs. Cloverfield, please come to the store manager's office, your son is breaking New York."

Clem

One thing i want to know is why it's even coming ashore? I presume it isn't even hinted at in the movie, but it's a bit perplexing; why a (presumably) deep-sea animal would even be able to move on land.


A bit of a washout, it doesn't acutally get released over here until the 1st of February.:sad:

http://visuallyimplied.com/incoming/1-18-08_11.jpg

It's on the 1-18-08 site. This was what I was referrring to when I was blabbering about whales.

Dang... like taking a bite out of a sandwich. Some ginormous chompers.

i found this http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2008/01/17/images/cloverfieldsmallslowhu0.gif which sort of shows the monster, you can see the red "thing" pulsating on its head.

Reminds me of the Kraken in the old "Clash of The Titans".

One thing i want to know is why it's even coming ashore? I presume it isn't even hinted at in the movie, but it's a bit perplexing; why a (presumably) deep-sea animal would even be able to move on land.
Graeme, I'm glad to know that I'm not the only one who tosses wet blankets on a barbecue.:twisted: The obsessive fanbase leans heavily towards the artificial life-form theory, that it's a one-off amalgam of different species that was part of a for-profit research venture gone wrong. Another, smaller faction thinks the monster is an extra-terrestrial that splashed down in the Atlantic and was discovered by the same for-profit company, the Tagruato corporation. In either scenario, there's nothing that stipulates the monster is a deep-sea animal, or even a primarily aquatic one. The New York connection isn't made clear in the film, but the tanker that capsizes in New York Harbor apparently has the Tagruato logo on it. Could have been transporting something iffy, could have been followed by the monster, but there is some kind of connection.

Reminds me of the Kraken in the old "Clash of The Titans".
I see exactly what you mean. It reminded me of another Harryhausen critter, the Ymir from "20 Million Miles to Earth." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ymir4.jpg) Fast-growing baby ET washes ashore, freaks out and adds rubble to Rome.

Another gripe about "Cloverfield": when someone spends, uh, face time with the monster, they come out looking unmussed. Dead, but clean and dry. Graeme can take whacks at implausible biomechanics and migratory habits, but I am certain that a person scooped up by whale-killing jaws would NOT come out looking like they were taking a nap. :roll:

Clem

Jonah? :)

Graeme, I'm glad to know that I'm not the only one who tosses wet blankets on a barbecue.:twisted: The obsessive fanbase leans heavily towards the artificial life-form theory, that it's a one-off amalgam of different species that was part of a for-profit research venture gone wrong. Another, smaller faction thinks the monster is an extra-terrestrial that splashed down in the Atlantic and was discovered by the same for-profit company, the Tagruato corporation. In either scenario, there's nothing that stipulates the monster is a deep-sea animal, or even a primarily aquatic one. The New York connection isn't made clear in the film, but the tanker that capsizes in New York Harbor apparently has the Tagruato logo on it. Could have been transporting something iffy, could have been followed by the monster, but there is some kind of connection.


I see exactly what you mean. It reminded me of another Harryhausen critter, the Ymir from "20 Million Miles to Earth." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ymir4.jpg) Fast-growing baby ET washes ashore, freaks out and adds rubble to Rome.

Another gripe about "Cloverfield": when someone spends, uh, face time with the monster, they come out looking unmussed. Dead, but clean and dry. Graeme can take whacks at implausible biomechanics and migratory habits, but I am certain that a person scooped up by whale-killing jaws would NOT come out looking like they were taking a nap. :roll:

Clem


About Tag. Corp, you forgot about the the "Chuai Station" factor and the fact that it seems that Slusho is as much of a growth-hormone, anti-depressant and steroid that seems to make everything it touches bigger, stronger, better.
The satellite image seems to be either part of the plot in some way but it's definitely not the monster.
(The viral marketing campaign has had the "Whistleblower" mentioned in my last last post send some images titled "Son-air1" and "Son-air2" and what seems to be a dark mysterious shape in the water before the fall of the satellite off Coney Island or the fall of Chuai.)
Besides, seven hours (or so) in the wind tends to dry out even the largest monsters even when they did appear out of the sea.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KarNwKx5mGY - The Chuai Station's destruction reported on the news. :sink:

I didn't forget about the platform that went under, it just didn't seem relevant when answering Graeme's question.

As for Slusho, I don't think it means much, to be perfectly honest. "Cloverfield" got its name from the street Abram's production company is on. They needed a codename for their hush-hush film, and chose the street name ("Return of the Jedi" was codenamed "Blue Harvest," and quite a few people thought that Lucas was making a non-"Star Wars" movie.) They weren't planning on releasing a movie called "Cloverfield," but once people started obsessing about the mysterious new Abrams movie with the opaque name, the filmmakers decided not to mess with an established brand and adopted the moniker. Slusho first appeared as a fictional beverage on "Alias" and became an in-house gag with the Abrams set, and was, for a time, an alternate codename for the secret monster movie project.

This is all to say that Slusho could prove to be as deeply meaningful as Cloverfield, that is, not deeply meaningful at all. I'm oviously leery of making categorical statements about what any of this viral crap might prove, and Abrams ought to be careful about letting his cleverness in marketing outstrip his abilities as a filmmaker and TV impresario. More than being leery of vaporware, I'm hostile to the notion that one can't truly "get" a film until one has consumed every last bit of ancillary material that the producers put on the internet. "Cloverfield" stands on it's own four legs. Extending the experience of the film by trying to make sense of random clues can be fun, but Abrams knows that any crumbs he drops are going to be pored over and exalted. Have you seen "Life of Brian?" Brian's followers think everything he drops means something. Brian didn't encourage them. Abrams encourages his followers, and believes his own hype. I just hope he doesn't leave his fans feeling like suckers.

Clem

Ah, but the fandom seems to be obsessing over it is becuase Slusho! has so many known properties that might explain the appearance of a giant monster, but not only that it's ingredients and origin is a complete secret and also it's also part of Tag. Corp.

There seems to be a link, we actually see a Slusho shirt in the movie, we also know that Rob is going to Japan to presumably work for Slusho/Tag and that certain actors within the play have drank Slusho.

Remember the series of Jamie loves Teddy Videos? Jamie (the girl in the video) went absolutely crazy after ingesting a small amount of the substance and then went into these wild mood swings.
The most recent would shows that she may have ingested the entire packet of unfrozen DSN and the last time (in game chronologically) we see her is her sleeping on the couch at Rob's party (cue sleeping blond).

Then we also have the fact that Chuai was a oil-rig that wasn't drilling for oil.

And then there's the JFK assassination to take into account...

I think the Thing came from area 51, and the smaller beasts were on the grassy knoll.

It's Jim Morrison!:shock:

I thought Jim Morrison changed his name to Neil Diamond ?

And this is where the thread decended into insanity and loss all seriousness, TONMO-style.

*snickers*

And this is where the thread decended into insanity and loss all seriousness, TONMO-style.

*snickers*
Wait a minute. Snickers? Are Snickers candy bars related to "Cloverfield?" OMG, yes! Remember when they were hiding in the convenience store, just before the lights go out you can clearly see Snickers bars on a rack. Maybe they have anti-Slusho properties. Also, the Snickers tag line is "Snickers Really Satisfies," or S.R.S for short. S.R.S. Technologies is a real company within the defense industry. (http://www.srs.com/srsweb/) They were just bought out by ManTech. Is ManTech doing its own research into artificially enhanced organisms, aimed at developing a super soldier? Check out this ManTech webpage (http://www.mantech.com/about/). She's clearly telling us that they're hiding something. Is she ManTech's Whistleblower? Is she telling us to STFU? Chewy caramel and peanuts! CHEWY CARAMEL AND PEANU--

This message, written in chocolate on the inside of an empty Slusho container, was found by the U.S. Defense Department in the area formerly known as "Way Uptown."

It's Jim Morrison!:shock:

For some reason, i watched Wayne's World 2 last night... does that make the little ones the half naked indian?

Adam, that is SO funny :grin:

:new_beammeup:

:roflmao:

I remember when Snickers used to be Marathon:old: Well they used to be over here.

I remember when Snickers used to be Marathon:old: Well they used to be over here.

That's interesting; when I was young, we had a marathon bar that was different from snickers over here... google says this is a modern equivalent: http://www.oldtimecandy.com/curly-wurly.htm

Of course, there's always been the weirdness that there is different UK vs US Mars bar packaging, although I think the candy is similar if not identical...

I only recently found out that Pepsi is different between the US and Mexico: in Mexico they use real sugar instead of corn syrup... my favorite Taco Truck imports the Mexican version and it tastes better.

Implications for Cloverfield paranoia are left up to you; I haven't seen it yet... but it sounds like they were watching the Slurm episode of Futurama when they came up with the backstory...

We had Marathon bars in the late seventies. They resembled long, flattened braids of caramel and chocolate. I was on my way to get one when I got hit by a car. Marathon should have hired me as a spokesman.:roll:

Line of the day, from Anthony Lane's "Cloverfield" review in The New Yorker. (http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/cinema/2008/01/28/080128crci_cinema_lane)
As for the beast itself, well, Hollywood creatures adhere to one of two models: the Ernest Borgnine (wide, toadish, grinning) or the James Woods (vulpine, pointy-faced, unfriendly), and our chum in “Cloverfield,” with his crutchlike arrangement of limbs, springs firmly from the latter camp.
Lane liked it much less than I did, but his magazine's target audience doesn't have much use for sci-fi or horror films (unless they're French).

Clem

Edit: Monty knows the candy of which speak.

That's interesting; when I was young, we had a marathon bar that was different from snickers over here... google says this is a modern equivalent: http://www.oldtimecandy.com/curly-wurly.htm




You guys called curly-wurlies Marathons!? You guys across the pond, you're all weird! :lol:


Actually that's quite interesting. The name difference. One thing about Snickers- that's the relevence of the name? It's never been clear to me.


Cloverfield comes out next Friday over here :(

Ah, Marathon Bars. My dearest love in childhood besides SweetTarts - the movie ones that came in a cardboard box that you can still get around Halloween, although the ones in the foil and paper roll will still suffice. The giant ones and the chewy ones just plain suck. Haven't tried ShockTarts yet, however.

Yeah. Marathon Bars. You actually thought you were getting more, even though they weighed the same as a standard candy bar. Remember the commercials? I'll have to check YouTube.

Graeme, I have no idea why it's named Snickers. I'm still waiting on an explanation for Twizzlers.

Well, I went a bit crazy with the pencils last night and drew my impression of the Cloverfield monster, aka Mr Grumpypants. I've put it up on Flickr. It's hardly gospel and I've only seen "Cloverfield" once. Still, I think I came pretty close. Official images of the "Cloverfield" monster/s are still under total lockdown, but if you really want to see a decent impression of the thing, click here. (http://www.flickr.com/photos/dasclemhaus/2216984438/)

Clem

Nice sketch!

Wow. Nothing on YouTube regarding Marathon Bars except a bunch of UK Snickers ads - they even featured the same background jingle as the Snickers ads in the USA - when said candy bar was called Marathon. Doesn't anyone care about my chocolate and caramel cultural heritage?!
To heck with the peanuts and nougat!

Thanks, Erich.

Off to see it in two hours, will keep my eyes peeled.

Graeme, I have no idea why it's named Snickers. I'm still waiting on an explanation for Twizzlers.

Well, I went a bit crazy with the pencils last night and drew my impression of the Cloverfield monster, aka Mr Grumpypants. I've put it up on Flickr. It's hardly gospel and I've only seen "Cloverfield" once. Still, I think I came pretty close. Official images of the "Cloverfield" monster/s are still under total lockdown, but if you really want to see a decent impression of the thing, click here. (http://www.flickr.com/photos/dasclemhaus/2216984438/)

Clem

Oh wow! Nice sketch! So it actually looks more like a sleek quadraped? It looks more terrestrial than aquatic; mind you it could be benthic. Actually reminds me of something from the anime series Neon Genesis Evangelion.


Nice sketch!

Wow. Nothing on YouTube regarding Marathon Bars except a bunch of UK Snickers ads - they even featured the same background jingle as the Snickers ads in the USA - when said candy bar was called Marathon. Doesn't anyone care about my chocolate and caramel cultural heritage?!
To heck with the peanuts and nougat!

Did you find the Mr T one? A guy takes a dive while playing (probably "Sunday league" football (soccer); he's lying on the ground wailing "Aaugh! Ref!!" when Mr T tears up the road, into the park, in a big tank and levels the gun at him. Very funny!:roflmao:

Oh wow! Nice sketch! So it actually looks more like a sleek quadraped? It looks more terrestrial than aquatic; mind you it could be benthic. Actually reminds me of something from the anime series Neon Genesis Evangelion.
Thanks, Graeme. My impression of the giant is that it's primarily aquatic, with forelimbs and shoulders optimized for swimming, and that its foray onto land was opportunistic. It's a bit clumsy on land, though no less lethal for it, and the one instance we see of it going fully bipedal ends badly. (It can't stand upright on dry land, but apparently didn't know that.) After dusting itself off, it sticks to walking/crawling on four limbs.

Yeah, it does have an Evangelion look in my first drawing. After seeing the movie a second time I started a new, quite different rendition. Paramount must be holding back all official images of the creatures(s) until the movie's opened globally, in all markets, so I'm still chained to memory. My new drawing is better, but there are still some features I've no flippin' clue about. The challenges are threefold. First, the giant's onscreen time is limited, and the view often obscured. Second, the giant's appearance isn't fully consistent from scene to scene, and its size seems to fluctuate too. (Those are problems that the best CGI artists haven't licked: ILM couldn't keep the tripods' size consistent in "WOtW.") Third, the thing itself is quite bizarre, with weird angles and a head made up of multiple volumes. It reminds me of at least five different animals, but my drawing can't look too much like any one of them.

The new drawing should be done tomorrow. I'll post it on Flickr and link to it here. And you can judge its accuracy after seeing the movie this weekend! :heee:

Clem

I'm going Sunday... Who knows, I might attempt a sketch myself :wink:

Chuckle...that leads to all sorts of speculation...

I'm going Sunday... Who knows, I might attempt a sketch myself :wink:
Don't forget that the deep blue transitions to silver just below the lateral line.

:twisted:

it is a monster from the water, its not cthuhlu though. a satalite shot from space woke it up form the depth of the ocean

Don't forget that the deep blue transitions to silver just below the lateral line.

:twisted:

I'll include a spoon, never seen a dishwasher :grin:

:mrgreen:

I like this one.

Cloverfield Monster, Drawing II. (http://www.flickr.com/photos/dasclemhaus/2229736446/in/set-72157603792258527/)

I like this one a lot.

:twisted:

:mrgreen:

I like this one.

Cloverfield Monster, Drawing II. (http://www.flickr.com/photos/dasclemhaus/2229736446/in/set-72157603792258527/)

I like this one a lot.

:twisted:


That should be a lithograph print. Beautiful work, a truly amazing bit of black and white.

I just put my sketchbook away, I am nothing, a worm; tread on me...

That should be a lithograph print. Beautiful work, a truly amazing bit of black and white.
Greg, you are too kind. Seriously, praise from an artist I admire carries a lot of weight. I'm going to be good and leave the original artwork alone, but I'll keep playing with digital versions. If I do decide to have a good reproduction made, what would the best printing options be?

I just put my sketchbook away, I am nothing, a worm; tread on me...
Cut that out!

Clem

:old: Why dont monsters ever come ashore on a secluded beach and end up demolishing Denver?

Great drawing Clem.:notworth: